Martin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Martin v. State

1921 OK CR 57, 196 P. 1103, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 20, 1921

DocketNo. A-3671.

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK CR 57 (Martin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. State, 1921 OK CR 57, 196 P. 1103, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231 (Okla. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Guy Martin, was convicted on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to one Dick Sec-ondine, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on the 14th day of October, 1919, sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to be confined in, the county jail for a period of 30 days. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on December 19, 1919, a petition in error with case-made.

*725 No brief has been filed. When the case was called for fina1! submission, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and for this reason the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment.

A cursory examination of the record indicates there is no merit whatever in the errors assigned. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mandate forthwith.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, Guy Martin, was convicted on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor to one Dick Sec-ondine, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on the 14th day of October, 1919, sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to be confined in, the county jail for a period of 30 days. He appealed from the judgment by filing in this court on December 19, 1919, a petition in error with case-made.

*725 No brief has been filed. When the case was called for fina1! submission, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and for this reason the Attorney General moved to affirm the judgment.

A cursory examination of the record indicates there is no merit whatever in the errors assigned. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Mandate forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK CR 57, 196 P. 1103, 18 Okla. Crim. 724, 1921 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-oklacrimapp-1921.